This statement shows that you are comletely close minded and don't even read the posts you are responding to. The Old Testament was written in Hebrew not English. I pointed out that the Hebrew word which was translated "circle" in the NIV is the word for anything round or circular and is based on the Hebrew word for the curve of the horizon. But you are so wedded to your fantasy you disregard this, assume the bible was originally written in English and stick to this fantasy that circle (a word biblical Hebrews never even heard of) always means flat but don't cite a shred of authority to back that up other than your own imagination. Since you are so close minded I'll just end the discussion there. You teach your kids what you want to and I'll teach mine what I want to.
This statement shows that you are comletely close minded and don't even read the posts you are responding to. The Old Testament was written in Hebrew not English. I pointed out that the Hebrew word which was translated "circle" in the NIV is the word for anything round or circular and is based on the Hebrew word for the curve of the horizon. But you are so wedded to your fantasy you disregard this, assume the bible was originally written in English and stick to this fantasy that circle (a word biblical Hebrews never even heard of) always means flat but don't cite a shred of authority to back that up other than your own imagination. Since you are so close minded I'll just end the discussion there. You teach your kids what you want to and I'll teach mine what I want to.
Now you're assuming that I think the Bible was written in English? Or that I don't read the posts I respond to? Goodness.
It does not matter that the original text was written in Hebrew. That doesn't change the fact that the ancient Hebrews were describing a flat, circular world--completely consistent with the world as they believed it to be. And as all of the ancient cultures in that part of the world believed the world to be. (Hint: if the ancient Hebrews had meant to describe the world as a sphere, they would have used a word meaning "sphere" or "ball." But they used a word meaning "circle.")
The fact is, you're still trying to insist that certain parts of the Bible which its authors and people up until a few centuries ago believed were accurate descriptions are metaphorical. That doesn't fly. Nor does your insistence make the story of animals springing up from the ground any more plausible or believable. You can't spin words to try to make the Bible into a scientific document. No matter how much you try to deny it, you're still picking and choosing which scientifically incorrect Biblical descriptions you will believe as true.
I think that teaching kids that Biblical metaphors (e.g. Genesis) are actual verifiable fact is reprehensible. You're essentially telling them that they have a choice between accepting scientific observations (which they can see for themselves) or a story which is not supported by any evidence. That kind of rigidity is not conducive to promoting faith. People have already become atheist because their parents taught them that Christianity is either/or, and they can see for themselves that the world is not as described in the Bible.